Ta 152 question

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Yodasgrandad
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 02 Nov 2016, 18:58
Location: United Kingdom

Ta 152 question

#1

Post by Yodasgrandad » 18 Jun 2017, 02:01

Would the Focke Wulf ta 152 of been a decent aircraft if introduced earlier?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#2

Post by T. A. Gardner » 18 Jun 2017, 03:03

Quite frankly, it wouldn't have made a nickel's worth of difference. It was a somewhat better version of the FW 190D and little more. The Allies had better planes on the drawing board too, like the MB-5 or the P-72, but didn't produce them because they were winning, piston engine aircraft by mid 1944 were clearly coming to a technological dead end as jets became available, and really didn't need better fighter planes.

Germany on the other hand was desperate and casting about for any and all technologies that might shift the course of the war back to their favor. Hence, they allowed half-developed, poorly tested, wunder waffe to go forward, even when it had zero impact on the outcome of the war.


Yodasgrandad
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 02 Nov 2016, 18:58
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ta 152 question

#3

Post by Yodasgrandad » 18 Jun 2017, 18:04

Hi,

Thank you for replying, I understand what you mean with it being useless at this point, was the P51 and the later Spitfires still better than it?

I know it wouldn't change anything but I'm only wondering if the plane would of been a good design if it entered service in 41-42?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#4

Post by T. A. Gardner » 19 Jun 2017, 00:58

While the individual Ta-152 (C or H) is as good or better than a P-51 or Spitfire XIV, it really makes little difference. It wasn't going to enter service in 41 or 42, as that would have required Tank to redesign the FW 190A into the FW 190D sometime in mid 1940, when the FW 190A-0 pre-production planes only reached service testing in mid 1941, and the first production FW 190A-1's weren't being delivered until July 1941.
The prototype precursors to the Ta 152 C and H were the FW 190 B and C series. The first of these was flown in mid 1942 and testing and development continued well into 1943.
The FW 190V 17 with a Jumo 213 first flew in March 1942 but production didn't occur until the end of 1943.

Out of these came the FW 190 Ra-2 and Ra-3 that became the Ta 152C and H respectively at the end of 1942. Even speeding up the timeline for the Ta 152, you wouldn't see any version reach production until maybe mid 1944, maybe early 1944 if it were really pushed and the testing went flawlessly (which it did anything but).

What you're asking for is the Ta 152 to be put up against early Spitfire IX or the P-51A, not the late war versions.

But, consider this:

The US decides to put the P-72A into production with the 5 stage turbo-supercharger. It does 510 mph to 520 mph at 20,000 to 25,000 feet. It climbs more than a mile a minute. This plane starts to reach operational units late in 1944. The only thing a Ta 152H does better is turn. The P-72 out rolls it. It out runs it, and significantly out runs it. It out zoom climbs the Ta 152H and leaves it in the dust in a sustained climb. Cockpit visibility is better and the P-72 has a K-14 gyro gun sight an AN/APS-13 tail warning radar.

It wasn't like the Allies didn't have better. They did. What they went with was "good enough."

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Ta 152 question

#5

Post by stg 44 » 19 Jun 2017, 14:36

Yodasgrandad wrote:Would the Focke Wulf ta 152 of been a decent aircraft if introduced earlier?
Depends on when. If in 1943 it would have been the best combat aircraft in the world. By 1945 it was a run of the mill top tier fighter that all Allied nations had a counterpart to. Had it been available in 1943 it would have been able to replace the twin engine fighter for daylight operations and made a superb fighter-bomber, but by 1944-45 it was too late to really matter, even if it would have been better than say the P-51D one on one...because it would not have been one on one and quality pilots were mostly gone.
T. A. Gardner wrote: The US decides to put the P-72A into production with the 5 stage turbo-supercharger. It does 510 mph to 520 mph at 20,000 to 25,000 feet. It climbs more than a mile a minute. This plane starts to reach operational units late in 1944. The only thing a Ta 152H does better is turn. The P-72 out rolls it. It out runs it, and significantly out runs it. It out zoom climbs the Ta 152H and leaves it in the dust in a sustained climb. Cockpit visibility is better and the P-72 has a K-14 gyro gun sight an AN/APS-13 tail warning radar.

It wasn't like the Allies didn't have better. They did. What they went with was "good enough."
The XP-72 just entered flight testing in early 1944, with the 2nd prototype entering testing in mid-June. A production order was issued due to their performance, but it was not ready by the time it became unnecessary, which AFAIK was late 1944 when the war was won. It wouldn't have entered service prior to early 1945 at the very earliest. So if say the TA-152 enters service in 1943, the P-72 isn't going to be in service until early 1945 and probably not in quantity in foreign service until mid/late 1945 at the earliest.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#6

Post by T. A. Gardner » 19 Jun 2017, 22:09

I'll largely ignore the argument "the Axis gets some wunderwaffe while the Allies do zero different."

As for the P-72...

This project has a lot of parallels to the FW 190 B / C and Ta 152 in it. The P-72 can trace back to late 1940 when Republic started to design potential faster replacements for the P-47. Of these, the XP-69 and P-47H / J are the primary early developments. The XP-69 was cancelled in May 1943 in favor of the XP-72.
Meanwhile, the basic P-47 was tested with other engines and configurations. The P-47J had a fan cooled R-2800-57C engine. This was basically a fan cooled version of the P-47D engine. But, it was coupled with the CH-5 five stage (versus 3 on the issue P-47) turbo-supercharger. The P-47J hit 504 mph in August 1944.
Concurrently, the first XP-72 with the P&W 4360 engine and 3 stage turbo-supercharger flew in February of 1944. The second prototype flew three months later in June 1944. Both aircraft were fully equipped combat-wise and included a 6 .50 gun armament, armor, etc. These prototypes hit about 470 mph. The expected production version with the CH 5 turbo-supercharger was expected to push the top speed to around 520 mph, and the XP-47J pretty much shows that's very likely the case.
Shortly after the second prototype flew, the order for production P-72's was cancelled and Republic told to concentrate development on the XP-84 Thunderjet.

So, the development timelines are similar in both cases. The difference is Republic didn't suffer the difficulties Focke Wulf did in producing prototypes, mostly because the US wasn't being bombed into the stone age, unlike Germany. Republic also had greater access to resources like skilled labor, and quality materials that helped make development go faster and smoother.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Ta 152 question

#7

Post by stg 44 » 19 Jun 2017, 22:21

T. A. Gardner wrote:I'll largely ignore the argument "the Axis gets some wunderwaffe while the Allies do zero different."
There is no argument to be made there. The Ta-152 isn't a Wunderwaffe and what could the Allies do differently? Magically fart out their own wonder weapon? Really the simple POD would be to have the FW190C sans turbosupercharger produced from 1943 on, as it was developed in 1941-42 and but for the turbosupercharger would have been a version of the FW190D that could have been constantly upgraded with improved superchargers.
T. A. Gardner wrote: As for the P-72...

This project has a lot of parallels to the FW 190 B / C and Ta 152 in it. The P-72 can trace back to late 1940 when Republic started to design potential faster replacements for the P-47. Of these, the XP-69 and P-47H / J are the primary early developments. The XP-69 was cancelled in May 1943 in favor of the XP-72.
Meanwhile, the basic P-47 was tested with other engines and configurations. The P-47J had a fan cooled R-2800-57C engine. This was basically a fan cooled version of the P-47D engine. But, it was coupled with the CH-5 five stage (versus 3 on the issue P-47) turbo-supercharger. The P-47J hit 504 mph in August 1944.
Concurrently, the first XP-72 with the P&W 4360 engine and 3 stage turbo-supercharger flew in February of 1944. The second prototype flew three months later in June 1944. Both aircraft were fully equipped combat-wise and included a 6 .50 gun armament, armor, etc. These prototypes hit about 470 mph. The expected production version with the CH 5 turbo-supercharger was expected to push the top speed to around 520 mph, and the XP-47J pretty much shows that's very likely the case.
Shortly after the second prototype flew, the order for production P-72's was cancelled and Republic told to concentrate development on the XP-84 Thunderjet.

So, the development timelines are similar in both cases. The difference is Republic didn't suffer the difficulties Focke Wulf did in producing prototypes, mostly because the US wasn't being bombed into the stone age, unlike Germany. Republic also had greater access to resources like skilled labor, and quality materials that helped make development go faster and smoother.
Yeah the issues still is the technology wasn't ready to produce until 1945 and then it would take time to get into production and then people trained on it before shipping it abroad. That takes time. The Ta-152 was introduced prior to that.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#8

Post by T. A. Gardner » 19 Jun 2017, 23:18

stg 44 wrote:Yeah the issues still is the technology wasn't ready to produce until 1945 and then it would take time to get into production and then people trained on it before shipping it abroad. That takes time. The Ta-152 was introduced prior to that.
The only reason the Ta 152 was introduced at all was what were essentially prototypes were being issued to combat units. Pilots were expected to file reports on their flights to the factory so that Focke Wulf could make modifications to the plane as it was being produced. The test program prior to being issued to operational units was like a mere 10 hours of flying time, and there were all sorts of minor to even serious issues with the plane.

The US or Britain would have never accepted an aircraft with dozens of issues, and unresolved production problems. Germany was desperate, and the Ta 152 was pushed out into service. The Me 262 or He 162 are no different. Those planes would never have gotten handed to operational units in the state they were in if it were the Allies making them.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Ta 152 question

#9

Post by maltesefalcon » 19 Jun 2017, 23:23

What did either side need to do to ultimately win the air war?
They needed to shoot down their enemies planes (and pilots) faster than they could be replaced.

The Allies had more available people to train as pilots and much higher production capability after Jan 1942.

As a result German fighters needed to be far superior in terms of quality and kill ratio just to keep the Allied force from growing faster than theirs. The Germans did create several higher quality aircraft, but never in high enough quantity to seal the deal.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#10

Post by T. A. Gardner » 20 Jun 2017, 02:06

maltesefalcon wrote:What did either side need to do to ultimately win the air war?
They needed to shoot down their enemies planes (and pilots) faster than they could be replaced.

The Allies had more available people to train as pilots and much higher production capability after Jan 1942.

As a result German fighters needed to be far superior in terms of quality and kill ratio just to keep the Allied force from growing faster than theirs. The Germans did create several higher quality aircraft, but never in high enough quantity to seal the deal.
First and foremost, the Germans needed better leadership at the highest levels of the Luftwaffe. This doesn't mean just Göring either. Most of the top Luftwaffe leadership had a poor understanding of the economic aspects of an air war. That is, they didn't understand what aircraft were possible and could be supplied economically. They also didn't understand how to interface with industry to procure aircraft.

Next comes the RLM. The Luftwaffe's bureaucracy should be the stuff of legends for the period. The RLM's office building was the largest in Nazi Germany. Between bureaucratic inefficiency, dithering, and incompetence, the RLM turned Germany's aircraft manufacturing process into an unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome system. Top that off with the RLM's various leadership and bureaucratic sections often vying against one and other to support their own pet projects, favored manufacturers, and loony ideas.

You go over to the operational side of things, and the Luftwaffe gets a whole 'nother level of crazy. Flak should have been the Wehrmacht's prerogative, not the Luftwaffe's. Had it been, it wouldn't have become the primary air defense system for Germany that it did become. The Kriegsmarine should have had its own aircraft under its command. Had that been the case, the KM would have had at least a minimum of maritime patrol planes available, and probably would have actually had carriers.
In operations, the Luftwaffe showed a general level of ineptitude in carrying them out. They really didn't have a viable strategy towards conducing an air war, and that really shows starting in the BoB.

That's where Germany needed to start.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Ta 152 question

#11

Post by maltesefalcon » 20 Jun 2017, 04:41

Well said above!

Meeko987
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 16 May 2017, 14:19
Location: UK

Re: Ta 152 question

#12

Post by Meeko987 » 20 Jun 2017, 13:11

Hi!

Would the Kriegsmarine have been if they had a carrier or two?

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Ta 152 question

#13

Post by thaddeus_c » 20 Jun 2017, 13:38

Meeko987 wrote: Would the Kriegsmarine have been if they had a carrier or two?
primary operating area, Baltic and North Sea was not good area to operate carriers

they did not have suitable aircraft for carrier operations

were not trained in carrier strategy or operations so really could not take advantage of them.

probably their needs better met with decent number of long range recon/bombers rather than tie up shipbuilding with carriers? as it was the two uncompleted carriers languished whereas they probably could have completed?? two more heavy cruisers?

Ianseymour95
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 04 May 2017, 22:59
Location: UK

Re: Ta 152 question

#14

Post by Ianseymour95 » 07 Aug 2017, 17:18

T. A. Gardner wrote:Quite frankly, it wouldn't have made a nickel's worth of difference. It was a somewhat better version of the FW 190D and little more. The Allies had better planes on the drawing board too, like the MB-5 or the P-72, but didn't produce them because they were winning, piston engine aircraft by mid 1944 were clearly coming to a technological dead end as jets became available, and really didn't need better fighter planes.

Germany on the other hand was desperate and casting about for any and all technologies that might shift the course of the war back to their favor. Hence, they allowed half-developed, poorly tested, wunder waffe to go forward, even when it had zero impact on the outcome of the war.

Would it of been effective against shooting bombers down?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Ta 152 question

#15

Post by T. A. Gardner » 07 Aug 2017, 20:13

No more so than an FW 190 or Me-109 was. It wasn't any better armed than either plane.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”